Just Posted: Nikon Coolpix A preview - hands on with the DX compact

We've had a chance to use the Nikon Coolpix A - the company's DX-format, fixed-lens compact. The Coolpix A features a 16MP APS-C sensor with no optical low-pass filter and a 28mm equivalent F2.8 prime lens. Nikon has done a lot of work to make the Coolpix A consistent with its DSLRs, from its interface to its compatibility with accessories.

Lots of people don't seem to grasp the point of this thing. It's meant to fit in your pocket AND have an APS-C sensor in it. Unprecedented and it gets no credit because people can't appreciate it's primary strength.

The entire discussion appears to me like bashing a new product without considering the facts. Least of all can I understand why the Coolpix A should be overpriced. Comparing all currently available wide angle compact cameras with at least 1” sensor size, only two products are less expensive: The Fujifilm FinePix X100 and the Sigma DP1 Merrill. None of them is as small and lightweight as the Coolpix A. Moreover, based on DxOMark data, the Coolpix A seems to have the best low-light performance among those cameras.Since I use Capture NX 2 for editing DSLR photographs and do not want to switch software, I am happy that Nikon finally offers a compact camera with good low-light capabilities. This is definitely the one I have been waiting for.

The Samsung cameras are wonderful but their interchangeable lenses are rather large. The Coolpix A is only 4 cm in depth and fits into the pocket of a coat. If you want to get a camera which you can take with you all the time, the Coolpix A is the better choice due to its format.

@latz: yes and no... the 39mm f2 is very compact. but after taking a closer look, I realize that you make a good point about the cameras' relative sizes. However, the A gives you the same brightness and DoF control as the RX100 (adjusting for sensor size), the latter of which adds a zoom and costs about half as much.

No EVF? No thanks. Once again, Nikon is introducing a camera that is overpriced by about 30%. If this had an EVF I'd definitely consider it. But the main reason I love my X100 is for the hybrid viewfinder. And image quality is outstanding. Sorry Nikon, try again.

One thing that really gets me frustrated with this camera, it is a detail that is important for some and not for others, but not in a category with such an opportunity to have a thread to put filter is too basic. What's wrong with this product manager, engineers who have the responsibility of designing this product, do not see these details? Do we have to make homemade adapters as it does for the RX100, or pay others for expensive adapters to be able to put a filter in front of the lens?There are things difficult to understand. Or putting a thread for filters would change the price to $ 150 more? And then the Marketing people say this is a camera with pro's in mind. I've always said, we are paying more for less. It is the philosophy of the manufacturers.

It has a high quality optical finder, if you want it. But with a built in finder, this camera would be significantly larger. The RX1 doesn't have a finder either. Neither Sony or Nikon could have made such small cameras with built-in finders.

Size is not an end in itself, at least in functional terms, though looking at some new Japanese cameras you do wonder.

There comes a point when something can be too small to have necessary features or handle comfortably. Not having an eye finder which can accurately check focus on a high resolution large sensor camera is a nonsense, RX1 especially.

This camera has been aimed squarely at Nikon SLR users to stop them buying competitors CSCs, but it's a niche in a niche - really doesn't have broad based appeal at this price.

It's funny, people want cameras that are as small as possible (pocketable is the new headline spec for the 21st century) and they want APS-C or FF sensors, high end optics, and cutting edge features like no-AA filter, they also want quality "made in japan" workmanship, yet they expect camera companies to give them all these things for $500 USD.

If the bargain hunter mentality that exists throughout these comments continues, perhaps companies will have zero incentive to bring exciting new products to market and we'll all be stuck with a choice of bland and blander generic, but low-price cameras.

While I do find the VF to be pricey, the camera itself is priced in line with other similar offerings.

Look at the price of the nex3.What reason do you see to double the price of this camera over that one? putting the little prime lens in a retractable barrel does not add $500, every cheap compact camera has such a retractable lens barrel.I have been waiting a long time for a compact with aps-c or larger sensor and fixed focal length lens but this price is simply absurd.

Sony wants to sell low-priced NEX bodies (made with cheap labor outside of Japan) so they can get people to buy into the NEX system and sell them lenses at $300-1000 a pop.

This Nikon is made in much smaller quantities, and is made in Japan like the X100s. It uses high quality materials, various metal and magnesium alloy body structure, knurled metal dials, etc. The lens was designed specifically for the 16 mp Exmor without the AA-filter, and judging from the MTF graphs, it's not your run-of-the-mill compact camera lens. But as a niche camera it will have a smaller market, which means it will sell for a bit more. I would love it to be $500 too, but that's just not possible. It wouldn't make much sense for Nikon as a business either to sell such a domestically made niche product at the price of a Coolpix P7700.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this camera. People either like it or they don't. But to compare it to a NEX-3 kind of misses the point.

There are many Canon and Nikon dslr's that are also priced much lower than this compact and it has been said many times that most people that buy these only ever use the kit lens so clearly they are not sold at a loss to later profit on the lenses.

Your point about it being more expensive because it is a niche product does have merit, but i wonder if it would really sell less than those affordable dslr's if they price it on a similar level?

The price of the viewfinder for this camera is actually higher than the price of the cheapest dslr kits which have an integrated pentamirror viewfinder and reflex mirror system on top of everything else in the camera body which is similar to what is in the nex camera's so apparently the viewfinder and mirror in a dslr is thrown in for free, clearly manufacturing cost has nothing to do with the pricing of this camera and its viewfinder.

Don't know any serious amateur who buys into a DSLR system and just uses the kit lens. But this camera is all about the high IQ in a small package. That seems to be a trend these days (see RX1). I'm probably one of the few people who actually uses a small camera bag for a small compact like the X10. But I do see the point of this camera, and aside from the price, it's a extremely compelling product. But then so is the X100s.

Well I would not consider this a trend just yet, I will when there are as many of these from different manufacturers as there currently are dslr's and other ILC's to replace the regular tiny sensor compacts. I do not know how likely this is but it might happen. The only thing a regular compact offers over a smartphone camera is the zoom, i think it is about time image quality takes over as the main selling point...I just wonder how long it will take for the public to become educated since i believe consumer ignorance is the main obstacle to camera's like this becoming mainstream, after all people wont be able to tell that these will deliver higher image quality by checking the megapixel tag. :)

Well after the RX-1 has proven a market for this type of camera, perhaps Nikon is aiming at folks that can't afford the high price of that camera. Does that make it an RX-1 wannabe? Or if the RX-1 is, as some have suggested, a Leica wannabe, does this mean that this camera becomes a Leica wannabe wannabe?

Or does this post just prove that I should have had more coffee this morning before hitting the blogosphere?

What a wasted opportunity!If Nikon would have brought out a digital copy of the F1 or S2 then they could heve seriously challenged the Fuju X series.

They advertise the camera as a street camera for professionals...but with no viewfinder as standard..and the one that is extra does not show focus points.

Do Nikon realise, that the majority of people who can afford this camera are over 40? and a lot of people over 40 wear distance glasses?

Using the camera at arms length to take a shot is not exactly what I call discreet when you are on the street...otherwise I will have to walk around with reading glasses..bi-focals are no good for this.

I expect big discounts for this silver elephant in a few months...in the meantime, I just might buy the X100s instead!

" Substantially smaller and thinner than the X100s or the X2, and quite a bit thinner than any NEX with the coming 20mm f2.8 pancake. "

Coolpix A: 111 x 64 x 40 mmNEX 5n: 111 x 59 x 38 mm

The NEX 5N body is actually smaller in all 3 dimensions !!!!With the 20/2.8 pancake it becomes larger in one of these, but remains smaller in the other two.

In exchange for the slightly thicker NEX (with the lens) you gain the huge advantage of interchangeable lenses. and on top of this the Nikon lens extends and you have to wait for it when powering on/off.

I would be a buyer at a price of $700 and $150 for the finder. To get the functionality of an 18.5 f2.8 lens on a 16MP DX camera I would have to carry my 17-55 f2.8 on my D7000. If I were willing to step down to f4 I would have to carry it with the 12-24. Neither is going in any pocket. This camera along with the D7000 and my 60mm f2.8 and 35 f1.8 would make a nice, very portable kit.

I have the E M-5 with three lenses: the kit 12-50, the pana-leica 25/1.4 and the panasonic 45-175. I thought I had all the practical focal lenght covered and didn't need another lens. Nikon told me I was wrong. With their Coolpix A Nikon suggests that a small and quality camera with a 28mm equivalent lens is a must-have. That had me thinking. So, today I purchased on ebay the panasonic 14mm/2.5 pancake lens. My E M-5 with it should be small and light (like Nikon suggests it has to be), it will be also almost 1/2 stop faster than the Nikon Coolpix A, and ....the new lens cost me $ 186 (vs. the Nikon $ 1,100 + $ 450 for the VF). Another thing, after I'll receive the 14/2.5 next week I'll have three primes with the same filter diameter of 46mm. Thank you Nikon!

A lot of noise by the Nikon fanboys.I think I have seen all this already ... oh yes, it was the 1 system release. There was a lot of noise, many publications (suspiciously positive and hyping) what a great camera it is. And where are we now:The V1 was released at £800 in the UK, now selling for £250 just over a year later!!!http://camerapricebuster.com/Nikon_Nikon_1_V1_+_10-30mm_Lens_pc.html

I am sure a similar fate will follow the Coolpix A as well. There are so many mirror-less cameras at the moment and Nikon should be trying much harder. Only if you look at how strategically the Sony products are placed, we don't even have to look at Fuji and Olympus products:A compact with high quality sensor and lens at acceptable price - RX100A compact full frame with outstanding lens but expensive - RX1And the whole APS-C NEX line in the middle with interchangeable lenses and all price points.And all this has been on the market for a while.

Not sure why you're trying to convince about the RX100, but you do realize that it doesn't begin to compete with the 16 mp Exmor for IQ, and especially in low-light?

From DxOMark sensor ratings:

Sports (Low-Light ISO) Score

D7000 1167 ISORX100 390 ISO

The D7000 produces around 14 EV DR, and the RX100's 12 EV DR (good for a compact) but clearly, the two cameras aren't equivalent for IQ.

As far as the V1 price, there is a new model called the Nikon 1 V2. Old discontinued models always drop dramatically in price.

By the way, the Nikon V1 that you are laughing at has a similar low-light ISO score to the RX100 345 ISO. (The V2 and S1 beat the RX100 in low-light). Neither camera is close to the D7000 or K5 type IQ. But the V1, unlike the RX100 has blazing fast AF, DSLR like PDAF tracking, and fast fps. It doesn't take a fanboy to be impressed with that. But speaking of fanboys, I'm not sure why all I'm hearing from you is Sony, Sony, Sony in a Nikon product announcement.

I am definitely not a Sony fanboy, in fact, all cameras I have ever bought prior to my NEX 5n and RX100 are Nikon. Several compacts and a DSLR, amongst which the P2 (a beautiful compact camera that I still keep and use from time to time) and a D40 (another Nikon gem). Other later ones, like the S8000, have been a appointment. However, technology moved quite a long distance from back then and now gives us several key advantages: mainly compactness, high ISO capability, stabilisation and even high res 60p video.

Following the release of NEX 3/5 and the Panasonic G1, I waited for several years for Nikon to catch up with competition as their colours and interface have always been appealing for me, but when the 1 system (what a disapointment that was) was announced I lost patience and got the NEX 5n, which turned out to be amazing, but still a bit limiting to carry with me at all times.Then the RX100 came out and I can confidently call it a revolution!

Why do I call the RX100 a revolution:Size - hugely important to allow you to have with you as often as possible;Quality - the lens and sensor are extremely good and specifically designed to work together. The quality is much better than 99% of people here will ever need;Versatility - compact zoom lens, silent shutter, good ISO capability, acceptable battery life, beautiful screen and (optional) EVF.All of these hugely expand the situations in which you can take pictures which is what you want from a camera. This is why I am raving about the RX100 so much.

Thom's articles are more and more just the rantings of someone either bitter or out of touch.He pontificates heavily on what he would or wouldn't do if he was CEO of Nikon (armchair quarterbacking)...And constantly pats himself on the back when a product comes out with similar specs or features as he was hoping for, as if he had something to do with it...LOL

It is truly sad as I used to enjoy his articles, nowadays he has just been relegated to someone that has lost touch and relevance in the industry.

The A falls between the RX100 and the RX1 with a sensor that is twice as big as what is in the RX100 and with no AA filter to boot. And has a smaller body than the RX1 at more than half the price

If the samples so far are representative of the image quality to come out of this little street camera, it is nothing short of amazing.

Remember Thom is a nature scenic photographer, NOT a street, press photographer, so the diatribe on his web site has to be taken with this in mind...

But Nikon has been doing a pretty good job managing their own business all of these years without the help of Monday morning quarterbacks and expert bloggers.

Sounds to me like somebody wasn't given a preview sample Coolpix A and is not too happy about it. Oh well. Keep throwing Nikon under the bus in his blog, and he probably won't get a preview D400 either.

@Bamboojled Exactly. Don't think he's been all that relevant for Nikon since film days. Which is what his mirrorless blog is about: and attempt to be relevant.

And still, he's 100% right about the Nikon A. Actually, Nikon is so afraid of hurting their entry DSLR line they'll probably end up being left out of the entire entry-mid level enthusiast market. I mean, there are fewer and fewer reasons to buy their lower end DSLRs considering the current development of the mirrorless cameras, and the "1" series never represented a real alternative to Olympus, Panasonic and Sony. As for the new A line, it is exactly as Thom said.

As far as my assumption regarding Nikon A's dynamic range/ hi ISO shooting. I am going by the results seen in the D7000 which I believe uses the same sensor, although this camera should be sharper because of no AA filter.

@dccdp It's YOUR opinion that he is right, the images from the A, and the small size say he's dead wrong. Push all the cheesy m43 cameras he wants, not one of them can touch the A for IQ.

The Coolpix A is smaller, and IQ-wise blows away any of your expensive ILCs for Olympus and Panasonic with the $1500 f2.8 zooms. Ask Thom.

And the way I see it, with the D5200 absolutely destroying any of your overpriced m43 cameras for IQ, for video, and on price, it is Thom who is looking out of touch.

As far as the 1 series, if you actually need to track a moving subject which ALL of the m43 and NEX cameras are terrible at, the smaller and less expensive Nikon 1 series make tons of sense. And don't think soccer moms and dads haven't noticed as the Nikon 1 cameras are outselling many of the "more mature" m43 cameras by a huge margin. Imagine, m43 and NEX have existed all these years and they couldn't figure out how to implement the AF Tracking that Nikon did on it's first MILC.

The big problem with the "A" is definitely its price. As others have already pointed out, there are much cheaper alternatives of comparable size and quality, with the added bonus of using interchangeable lenses. As for the autofocus, the Nex already has phase detect on their sensors, so it will soon become a non-issue.

Does it mean you've tried it against its "cheesy" competition? Or are you just being a fanboy?

No I haven't tried it, but I've owned a D7000 and own two recent m43 cameras, and sorry, but they don't come close to the D7000. This camera, based on that sensor without the AA-filter, and based on the few full-sized images I've seen, seems to beat the m43 offerings easily for IQ. And we know about the Coolpix A's small size. I thought size was the bees knees for you m43 fans? I get it: small + Nikon = bad, small + m43 = good.

Sorry it has nothing to do with fanboy, I think this camera looks pretty nice, and the images look wonderful. I'd probably opt for an X100s, but I dig this new Nikon. What's the problem?

@ManuelVilardeMacedo Of course I've formulated by opinion, just like you have. It seems to have extremely good IQ from it's D7000/16 mp Exmor heritage, and by removing the AA filter, it should exceed that great camera. Besides, I have eyes. I've downloaded the samples, and can see how stunning they are.

Besides, it's a DX Nikon, did you expect it to be a bad camera?

As far as taking me seriously, I can't control that, all I can give is my opinion, and yes, I'm a Nikon DSLR user, and I like this little camera. Is that such a stretch?

NX1000 + 16mm f2.4 + 20-50mm for $550 on BH. You could buy two of those kits for exactly the same $1100 and I bet there is no pratical size difference. Or buy the kit above plus the lovely 30mm f2 plus a fourth lens of your choosing and still have change for an evening at the pub.Nice camera though and I think the 28mm FL is perfect for point and shooters, who buy pocket zooms but take 98% of their shots at widest setting anyway.

If you're going to take a shot where that much barrel distortion is a laughing matter, you probably aren't going to use a camera you hold at arm's length that weighs less than a pound. This thing may be priced with cameras that care about that but that's not where Nikon is trying to sell it for.

I have been trying to understand where these Fixed lens high end compacts fit into a camera bag... For this Nikon version, if the A had a 35mm (EFL) lens it might have been a “street camera” but 28 is a little wide. I can only think that this is a 28mm (EFL) lens for a Nikon APS shooter. If you're shooting wildlife with your telephoto lens on the DSLR and all of a sudden you see a opportunity that requires a 28mm then you can whip this out of the bag and not have to change lenses or carry a second big DSLR with a 28mm attached... and you get to pay a slight premium for the convenience... I'm not sure what other argument I could make for owning one – the P330 is certainly a more versatile carry everywhere camera with some IQ penalty I suppose.....

I love this camera! It's about damn time Nikon got serious about small cameras at the risk of bastardizing some of its bread and butter products (DSLRs). Removing the AA filter was a stroke of genius...BRILLIANT! I’m buying one for sure!

I like it too. Don't know if I'd choose it over a D7100 or an X100s, but for a more pocketable camera, so far my impressions of this camera are positive. As far as price, if you consider that it's half the price of a Leica X2, then it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Have a close look at Doug Menuez taking the shots...professionals do not hold cameras at arms length and have to take their glasses on/off....he looks a bit pained....I bet as soon as the hype wears off, it will go in the bin or end up on ebay.

omg.. I have always wondered what kind of 'photographer' would take those Street Photography classes I have seen at community colleges.. too funny.

Stand still for 5-seconds in any street in any city any where in the world and you are invisible to 99% of everything going on around you - you have plenty of time to focus, even manually.Before regurgitating classroom techniques and requirements for one of the oldest styles of photography, one should actually do it personally..

Not sure who you are referring to in regards to personally going out and shooting street photography...

If your comment is referring to my comment about the slow focus of the EOS M; and not being a valid choice for street shooting - I stand by my comment.

First off, I am for the most part solely a street photographer...

If your comment is that street photography can be done with pretty much any camera, I guess your right, just like any camera can be used for sports photography; heck, speed graphics used to be used for sports and press shooting.

That is not the point, the point is, is it the best or even the proper tool for street shooting. A lot of street photography is done shooting from the hip, at that point a camera that focuses fast and accurately is better suited and will yield a much higher success rate than one that doesn't.

Why would I limit my shooting by choosing a camera that is slow to capture the scene?

To me it seems the Coolpix is just like a slightly souped up 3N without the flexibility of ILS but with £300 slapped on to the price - so that you can spend even more money on an external VF, or flash strobes. Since that kind of negates the whole size/weight advantage, by that time you might as well get yourself a NEX-5 or an MFT system.

I've never understood people moaning about video. Its a camera; if you're that serious about filming buy a dedicated video camera. If you're not that dedicated, how often do you REALLY use the movie feature as opposed to taking images?

Having 50p/60p is nice sure, but is it a must have for the majority of people?

You can buy bodies separately as well. I bought my C3 as a body only, and then got the stock 18-55 all for about $400US. Also don't forget the Sigma 19 2.8. Not pancake, but again, even with the pancake a NEX is not fitting in a pocket.

when Nikon does something that could be interesting stuff, it is not payable. This camera is at least 350$ overpriced and follows the 1V2 in that matter, which is an ILS. And, they follow Sony RX1 policy, good body, no ILS. So, for a point an shoot, one can say it's solid overpriced. At 700 to 750, I get one since the size and format is ok, not the lens, here a 1.7 had made a better job. Do not forget that Sony gives you this same camera type with ILS for 500$, the latest Nex3 with 16-50 lens included. So, compare, and, it is smaller than this one, and has the same sensor base.

I find it interesting that Leica had the Minilux in the 1999-2002 era. It was about $700 US, in the range of the Coolpix A adjusted for inflation.

The original Minilux had a fabulous 40mm 2.4 lens. A lot of people saw the value in that camera. Those that did not initially, usually changed their mind after seeing the photos produced by the camera.

Here are a few more samples, including the very nice image of the woman in the window (on Nikon's website, but not full-res) and others. Either that photographer's especially gifted or this is not your daddy's Coolpix or a bit of both.

Too bad I just bought a Fuji X20 because this camera is interesting for sure.

Other Coolpix A Samples (copy and paste link below)http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/sets/72157632921362676/with/8531062486/

At first, i thought it is very expensive.But my second thought, is it is just right price or maybe a little expensive. To compare with sony rx100, it is about $450 more but it's senser is twice bigger. To compare with rx1, senser is smaller and there's big difference in price. To compare with fujifilm x100s, senser size is same but x100s has better looking with retro style and has optical view finder but nikon is much smaller body design. If some one wants smaller body with APS-C senser and doesn't mind little slow lens then it is worth it's price. But for me, I will choose rx100 or x100s haha...=33

f2.8 times a 1.5x crop factor is f4.2f1.8 times a 2.7x crop factor is f4.9The RX100 may be a zoom, but at wide in low light it compares reasonably with the far more expensive and physically larger Nikon. Zoom aside, it takes in more light per dollar than the Nikon "A" at the same equivalence. Now, that's just number of photons you also have to discuss the sensor but I think Sony's 1" sensor is pretty good and stands a good shot there too. It's more MP which gives a higher theoretical resolution though it's pixel density is far higher leading to more noise. The Coolpix A might have a higher ISO range but not even a full step I would think. RX100 zoom is near as good as this prime.

Yes we can compare the RX100 and the A. They are equally comparable as the RX100 is to say the LX7. The sensor size is not the same, but you can definitely see the resemblance. You can't say the A is in a different class unless you want to put the RX100 in a different class than the LX7/XF2/X20/etc as well.

Won't happen. Either they will sell a lot (not likely, after the initial surge of Nikon fans) or they won't, and this has been figured into their calculation. If anything, they will be backordered simply because, well, it's Nikon.

Honestly its a good camera but a bit too pricey. Its also like playing catch-up with other players something Nikon has always done outside their favorite DSLR realm. Their are still a lot of Nikon owners that will get interested. My real question is, what will happen to 1 system?

The Nikon 1 system is going strong and selling well. And Nikon has released a few new lenses, a telezoom and UWA zoom, and soon will have a Nano crystal coated 32 f/1.2 portrait lens (One please). And they have a few new bodies like the S1 with a ridiculously fast 15 fps burst mode that has gotten some really good reviews and done very well on DxOMark tests.

This camera has no effect on Nikon 1. It's a different kind of camera, in some way much better, i.e., IQ and in some ways worse, no PDAF or EVFs like the V series.

You can always crop a bit but you can't always stand back far enough. Don't need one, don't plan on getting one, but I can see why some people would love to have one of these in the bag with their SLR for opportunistic shots, and the sensor is well proven.

For Nikon users it's nice to have a compact that can exploit the same development parameters as their SLRs.

My only question is why don't they release a fixed lens zoom version of the 1 series (not instead of this but as a competitor to the RX100, which hits the performance/convenience sweet spot for a lot of users).

Why didn't you buy a Ricoh GXR 28mm two years ago? It's even f2.5 while this one is f2.8. The GXR also has focus-peaking, snap-focus and even an optional EVF as well. Actually, why not buy one today anyway for half the price of this new Nikon?

- Cost. Exotic lens elements and advanced aspherical shapes needed for fast and compact lenses cost a lot. But this is a fixed lens with limited controls and features priced at $1,100, or $1550 with EVF!?

- Size of the sensor. APS-C sensor means big lenses. Just compare the size of lenses with the same speed in NEX and M43 cmeras. An M43 camera can be significant smaller or faster as a result.

Also, Nikon picked a less popular focal length, 28mm, which in f/2.8 can be very small even for APS-C.

Most ofl the complaints of this camera or any NEX camera are due to this fundamental problem of making a small camera with a largish APS-C sensor. There is no cure for this physical limitation, or for the stubborn attitude in continuing with APS-C when makers change to small mirrorless cameras.

Once again, this shows M43 has the optimal trade offs in size (camera dn lens) and performance for small cameras. A M43 camera with 35mm f/2 will kill this.

Remember that the Sigma DP1 was F4. I guess modern software corrections and trickery can get you to F2.8, but it would be next to impossible to make a sharp, small, APS-C compatible 28mm lens brighter than that.

I blame the f2.8 on Nikon simply shortchanging the user.There's plenty of examples of fast, small lenses, on both film & digital cameras. Fuji x100, Konica Hexar, minilux(40mm summarit), etc, etc.They also skimped and used 7 aperture blades.

Cnet has stats of the Nikon & fuji x100s side by side. It tells the tale. But- the Nikon is smaller.

This is an odd omission. The "experts" will say you don't need it with a wide angle lens but it's frequently useful and does no harm. The viewfinder doesn't seem to be much of an issue; plenty of others to choose from.

VR would take up valuable space in the lens mechanism. It's not left out for cost considerations. It's not really necessary at 28mm and and is an obstacle to the primary design goal of this camera: compactness.

I see. No image stabilisation. That's any reason for choosing 28mm equiv instead of the more popular 35mm equiv. It is just impossible to make an APS-c camera and lens very small, if it has to have IS, 35mm, a faster aperture, and also good IQ (incl corner sharpness, vignetting, CA etc) and decent operational features like AF. Sony has already tried for years in its NEX range and has done its best, and, not doing all that well but still better than Nikon is trying to do now.

Anyone who has used the 16-35 VR lens knows how incredibly useful image stabilization is, at ANY focal length. I like stories about hand holding a camera for 4 seconds as much as anybody but realistically, without VR you have to push the ISO way up and whole point of this camera is image quality.

I like this, but not having a lens mount lessens the attraction, This could be a grate competitor to M4/3, NEX, Samsung NX and the like. Just like like with the CX series Nikon has missed the target again.

Give me an A series lens mount with a F-Mount adaptor with AF and one with Tilt Shift and you would have a real winner. A line of f2.8 pancake lenses starting with the 18.5 that it already has, a 35mm and 50 or 60mm would be nice. and a kit zoom say 17-50mm f/3.5-4.5 and a 50-150 f/4-5.6 both compact. I'd but that.

It's a pity to read all these critics only based on the specifics. If the interest of a camera was based on those facts, what could be said about a M9?

Once a deep review will reveal the amazing IQ provided by an expert-like-controllable-pocketable camera,I hope we'll laugh at this wave of grumpy photographers.

And if this first shot from Nikon is not the perfect tool, we can see clearly that the whole market is on the way we all wish: an affordable "reflex IQ" in your pocket. Just a matter of -short- time. So why complaining that much?

Much as I prefer just about everything about Ricoh to Nikon, this Nikon is essentially a Ricoh GR with a decent sized sensor so the difference in image quality will be dramatic. But a GR Digital with a big sensor--wow.

While I'm a bit miffed at the 2.8 aperture choice, considering the other options available (it's not as if the x100 is a bad camera, after all), I am overall very pleased with Nikon and others for stepping up to the plate and producing cameras for those who want a pocketable camera with a sensor that is larger than my fingernail.

Wonder if those here claiming 28mm is not useful for this or that have seen the sample images:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/a/a/sample.htm

Honestly, don't most zooms start at 28mm? Do the above people not use the most interesting focal length on the zoom, 28mm?

Anyone who has ever tried shooting in a large city like Manhattan or the small streets in European cities with a 35mm or nifty fifty knows that you spend all your time backing up to get buildings or people on the shot. A wide angle lens on the street solves this problem and is pretty much standard on the most popular street cameras like the GRD. Besides, 28mm is actually a bit more interesting than a "normal" 35mm or 50mm FOVs.

If stuck with one lens, I'd choose 28mm over 35mm any day, but not everyone agrees, Fuji owners, for example. In the past, Nikon covered their bases with the 35ti and 28ti. Both cameras were small, had great lenses and cost a lot. Nobody remembers either of them.

Nikon aficionados, and those of a certain age remember the T3i. Great little camera, looks a bit like the wonderful Contax T3 but had that cool meter window with four dials. These high-end film compacts like these two cameras, and the Rollei 35 are great, and quite collectable.

Speaking from experience, there are a lot of things you *can't* do with 28 mm FOV. Some people can "live" in a 28 mm world, others, like me, find it frustrating and restrictive. It really depends on the person.

No. 24mm and wider are much more difficult focal lengths to use for general photography as things start to distort with buildings that start tilting out at the edges of the frame. A landscape photographer would prefer the wide FOV, but for general/street photography, it's a bit more difficult to use an UWA lens.

i disagree. ultra wide lens obsession is like that with MP or HDR. traditionally such a niche area with such limited application id much rather have 28mm + .. dont even get me onto the "myth" of wide being used for landscapes... not last time i checked,..

It's not DOA with that superb IQ and it's small size. I'd take this camera over the RX100 any day. No AA-filter and a lens that's not soft wide open up close like the RX100 and you can count me in. What's the point of a compact with a poor macro mode?

The RX100 is:Lens is faster F1.8 vs F2.8Lens is a zoom with great qualityBattery is +50% more shots !!!Better LCD 1.2kwhitemagic vs 0.9k dotsBody is 20% lighterBody is 10% smallerVideo has Full HD 60p vs 30 on the Nikon20MP vs 16MPHALF PRICE !!!!

Wow, enthusiastic aren't we. And I'm glad you love your camera, but used to use an RX100, it's a good camera, but not enjoyable to shoot with for me. It felt like a P&S, and not in a good way.

As far as video specs, the big one you missed is 1080p24 on the Nikon.

How many boring slow-mo videos do we see on YouTube and Vimeo with people obsessed with 60p? It get's old very quickly. On the other hand, 24p is the standard frame rate for all narrative films. No 24p on the RX100.

But whatever, to argue that this Coolpix A is DOA is utter nonsense. I've seen the sample images, I've looked at the high build quality, and the cool add-on VF, and I would buy one for sure. And I'm sure I'm not alone.